United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
H.L. Perez-Montes United States Magistrate Judge.
the Court is a civil rights complaint (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
filed by pro se Plaintiff Davin Hanks (“Hanks”)
(#399204). Hanks has been granted leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. (Doc. 8). Hanks is an inmate in the
custody of the Louisiana Department of Corrections
(“DOC”), incarcerated at the Raymond Laborde
Correctional Center in Cottonport, Louisiana
(“RLCC”). Hanks complains that he has been
deprived of adequate dental care, and he names as Defendants
Ramen Singh, Dr. George Smith, and Sandra Sibley.
Hanks cannot establish that Defendants acted with deliberate
indifference, his complaint should be dismissed.
his arrival at RLCC, Hanks received a dental evaluation
revealing “decayed teeth, missing teeth, and poor oral
hygiene.” (Doc. 12-1, p. 1). Hanks was provided pain
medication. (Doc. 1, p. 8). Two months later, Hanks initiated
a sick call due to tooth pain. (Doc. 1, p. 8; Doc. 12-1, p.
1). It is alleged that Nurse Sibley advised Hanks it could be
a while before he would see a dentist, as there was no
dentist at RLCC at that time. Hanks was given a six-month
prescription of Motrin 600 mg for pain. (Doc. 1, p. 8; Doc.
12-1, p. 1).
next complained of dental pain on February 11, 2016. (Doc.
12-1, p. 1). He was referred to the new RLCC dentist, and
examined on February 22, 2016. Hanks had several follow-up
appointments involving extractions and fillings. (Doc. I, p.
9; Doc. 12-1, p. 1). Hanks alleges the extractions were
necessitated by the seven-month delay in seeing a dentist.
(Doc. 1, p. 9).
Law and Analysis
Hanks's complaint is subject to screening under
§§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A.
is a prisoner who has been permitted to proceed in forma
pauperis. As a prisoner seeking redress from an officer
or employee of a governmental entity, Hanks's complaint
is subject to preliminary screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A. See Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578,
579-80 (5th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). Because he is proceeding
in forma pauperis, Hanks's complaint is also
subject to screening under § 1915(e)(2). Both §
1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b) provide for sua
sponte dismissal of the complaint, or any portion
thereof, if the Court finds it is frivolous or malicious, if
it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,
or if it seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief.
complaint is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A claim lacks an
arguable basis in law when it is “based on an
indisputably meritless legal theory.” Id. at
327. A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted when it fails to plead “enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).
Hanks cannot state an Eighth Amendment
officials violate the Eighth Amendment's proscription
against cruel and unusual punishment when they act with
“deliberate indifference” to the serious medical
needs of prisoners. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.
825, 834, (1994); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,
105 (1976). Deliberate indifference “is an extremely
high standard to meet.” Gobert v. Caldwell,
463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). An
inmate must show that prison personnel “refused to
treat him, ignored his complaints, intentionally treated him
incorrectly, or engaged in any similar conduct that would
clearly evidence a wanton disregard for any serious medical
needs.” Domino v. Tex. Dep't Crim. J., 239
F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001) (quoting Johnson v.
Treen, 759 F.2d 1236, 1238 (5th Cir. 1985)).
in medical care violates the Eighth Amendment only if the
delay is based on deliberate indifference, and it results in
substantial harm. See ...